David Ignatius, writing about the furor around the rumored nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, remarks that the first enlisted man to be considered for the job "has taken so much flak he deserves another Purple Heart." That about sums up the tenor of the debate Hagel’s presumed nomination has provoked. A veritable rainbow coalition of nay-sayers has coalesced in opposition: Republican strategist Dan Senor and Democratic strategist and DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas, the Log Cabin Republicans and the anti-gay Christian fundamentalists around Rev. John Hagee, Rachel Maddow and her rightwing counterparts at Fox News. (Oh, and don’t forget the Armenians!)

Meanwhile, neocon godfather-by-descent Bill Kristol is eagerly retailing the complaints of this disparate chorus in his Weekly Standard hate sheet. If these folks ever had a get-together, it would resemble the bar scene in Star Wars.

While each of these disparate voices has its own particular complaint, this curious Popular Front’s main line of attack has been the accusation that Hagel is "anti Israel."

This comes despite his many public expressions of support for the Jewish state: in particular, I would recommend people read this address to the Israel Policy Forum, wherein he reiterates his support for a two-state solution in the region. That the current Israeli government is doing its best to undermine that goal is the real reason for the Israel lobby’s concerted attack on his views and character: which is just the sort of behavior we have come to expect from those who conflate the interests of the Likud government with those of the Jewish state itself. Given the likelihood that the next Israeli government is going to be even more right-wing than the present one, this crucial distinction is increasingly apparent to many of Israel’s supporters in the U.S.

So the idea that Hagel is "anti-Israel" is a canard, as Peter Beinart and other moderate supporters of Israel have been tirelessly pointing out. Furthermore, the poisonous accusation of anti-Semitism, cavalierly leveled against Hagel in the pages of the Weekly Standard, appears to have backfired, with endorsements coming from the Jewish community as well as generating general revulsion at such a baseless, reckless charge from prominent members of the Jewish community.

Well, then, so what exactly is the problem? While the neocons might be expected to attack anyone nominated by this President, why have they gone after Hagel hammer and tongs?

The key to understanding the neocons’ game is to look at their role in the Republican party as the gatekeepers of the interventionist flame. In spite of dragging the GOP and the conservative movement down to defeat in two disastrous elections, and regardless of their responsibility for lying the US into a war that killed hundreds of thousands for no good reason, they are still the go-to guys for "Republican" or "conservative" foreign policy talking points. They still proffer their dubious advice at half a dozen respected conservative thinktanks, and their ties to what passes for the congressional Republican "leadership" on foreign policy matters are undiminished.

In short, their monopoly on foreign policy on the right side of the political spectrum is unbroken, in spite of the demonstrable and quite expensive failure of their policies when implemented. And they want to keep it that way.

Observe how they have moved to quickly quash any challenge to their hegemony in this field over the years – and the similarity of the smear campaigns that accompanied each effort. First up was Patrick J. Buchanan, whose post-cold war challenge to the internationalist bipartisan consensus was deemed a vital threat to the GOP’s precious bodily fluids. Think what you will about Pat’s politically incorrect views on cultural matters, he was the first political figure with any real visibility to throw down the gauntlet to the neocons and question, in a serious way, our foreign policy of perpetual war. His was practically a lone voice against the first invasion of Iraq, and his critique limned the arguments of those protesters who came later when George W. Bush launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

They called Pat every name in the book, and then some – and they doled out the same treatment to the next challenger to come along, Ron Paul. Pat was a former Cold Warrior trained in the Nixon school of international diplomacy, but Paul learned his lessons under the tutelage of the "Austrian" economists and their foremost advocate in this country, the late Murray N. Rothbard, who founded the modern libertarian movement in his living room in the 1960s. Paul’s showdown with failed presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani during the 2008 GOP primary debate, in which Paul suggested that US foreign policy rather than the inherent evil of all Muslims might explain our problems in the Middle East, instead of dooming him to irrelevance – as the neocons brayed at the time – catapulted him to national prominence. Paul filled a niche that had, up until that point, remained empty with Buchanan’s withdrawal from politics: that of the Republican politician who talks sense about our endless overseas meddling.

And he met the same kind of frenetic smear campaign: "anti-Semite" was the least of the charges leveled against him. And now Hagel is encountering the same frenzied Two Minutes Hate.

What these three men have in common, aside from their personal integrity and refusal to be intimidated by a gang of intellectual bullies, is that they all register varying degrees of skepticism about the sustainability of the American empire – and all three are Republicans.

True, both Buchanan and Paul took the third party route at various points in their respective careers, in an effort to break the electoral roadblock that stands in the path of anyone who challenges Imperial Washington’s right to rule the world. But Paul had been elected to Congress as a Republican nearly continually throughout his long career, and Pat, as we all know, served in the Nixon administration. Hagel’s political career is that of a very conservative Republican Senator, as the "Obama must appoint a Democrat" faction has been emphasizing with gusto.

The "liberal" wing of the anti-Hagel grand coalition has been busy, too, with their own take on the prospective nominee. They’re circulating a charge sheet in Washington pointing to Hagel’s opposition to gun control, and his longstanding pro-life position, as well as his "anti-gay" history, in order to convince the MSNBC-Watchers of America that Hagel is a raving rightist.

That none of these issues have anything to do with his possible tenure as the civilian head of the Pentagon is irrelevant in terms of the current state of the national discourse, where certain cultural stances signal membership in either Team Red or Team Blue. These positions are the equivalent of religious dogma in an earlier age, and this is especially true on what passes for the "left" these days, where identity politics long ago trumped traditional ideological concerns. The charge sheet reads like an indictment issued by the Inquisition: there is naturally not a word in there about Hagel’s foreign policy views, no doubt because any reference to them might awaken whatever vague memories today’s liberals retain of their vestigial anti-interventionism.

So what are people like Rachel Maddow, the alleged leftie, doing attacking Hagel in alliance with the likes of Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard crew? They, too, have an interest in this, a political interest which dictates that conservative Republicans continue to mouth neocon-inspired nonsense as a substitute for coming up with an alternative to the effusive and occasionally militant internationalism that has marked Obama’s foreign policy up to this point. They want the "three amigos" of GOP foreign policy wisdom to continue to be the most absurdly militaristic Republicans in the Senate, John McCain and Lindsey Graham — the now retiring Joe Lieberman’s place having been taken by the harpie-ish Kelley Ayotte. Their nutty and wildly unpopular foreign policy of perpetual war is one of the big reasons why Republicans continue to lose national elections and are increasingly marginalized among the young — and the Rachel Maddows of this world want to keep things that way.

This hostility to pro-peace Republicans doesn’t extend to much of the Democratic base, however: mindless partisanship didn’t stop many progressives from endorsing and/or expressing admiration for Ron Paul and his 2012 campaign for President. An increasing number of thoughtful people on the left aren’t afraid to cross the ideological divide in order to stand up for peace.

These defections were a cause of concern for the more sectarian lefties, who denounced Paul in the same harsh terms that the neocons did. Worse, what passes for the leadership of the progressive movement in today’s America couldn’t care less about upholding the traditional anti-interventionism that energized the Vietnam era left. Instead, they have made their bargain with US imperialism, and struck a deal with the Devil in which they have traded the left’s longstanding opposition to militarism for the slow but steady expansion of the welfare state.

What Murray Rothbard called the Welfare-Warfare State is maintained in good working order by an alliance of interests, each one of which gets their "fair share" of the pie. The Pentagon budget gets its perpetual raises, and the welfare state keeps expanding, with both parties log-rolling each other’s pet projects. That the whole edifice rests on a rather flimsy foundation of IOUs is a fact of reality neither the "left" nor the "right" cares to confront.

Take the recent "fiscal cliff" drama, in which the GOP wound up voting for a tax increase. Having decided in advance that cuts to the Pentagon are impermissible, they were forced into an untenable position – opposing new revenues and yet refusing to call for any real cuts in either the military budget or so-called entitlements. The neocons, led by Kristol, supported the compromise, because anything’s better than cutting a single penny from our capacity to commit mass murder – even betraying your principles and your base.

Both the neocons and the progressive intelligentsia have a real interest in stopping the development of an anti-interventionist movement on the right: the latter because it will broaden the base of a rapidly shrinking GOP, and the former because they are ideologically committed to militarism. To those who spend their time thinking up new wars for others to fight, the mere thought of an enlisted man of the Vietnam era coming to preside over the Pentagon is their worst nightmare.

Their Hagel nightmare comes on the eve of a critical juncture in American foreign policy, as the issue of Iran takes center stage. The neocons, of course, are up in arms because Hagel disdains the "sanctions" game, preferring to engage rather than demonize Tehran. However, since the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with Hagel when it comes to his reluctance to sign on to new wars of conquest, it is necessary for the neocons to come up with other reasons to oppose him, and so we’re seeing this unusual right-left pincer movement in the campaign to demonize him.

The stakes in the Hagel nomination fight are much higher than is at first apparent, because the real issue transcends the question of our relationship to Israel, or even Iran. It’s about whether the Welfare-Warfare State is going to be allowed to bankrupt this country, both financially and morally, without encountering significant opposition from either the left or the right. It’s about whether the strategic symbiosis of neocons and "progressives" inside the Beltway is going to withstand the tides of war:

That’s why it’s vitally important that a grassroots populist movement against this sinister symbiosis arises in support of Hagel. We must defeat the neocon smear campaign, and the best way for you to do that is by signing the White House petition in support of Hagel. It’s long past time for a populist rebellion against the smear-mongers of the Beltway, and the smug Washington insiders who spread their calumnies in the dark – because rebellions, don’t you know, often lead to revolutions….

Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Forward by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon.

Buy my biography of the great libertarian thinker, An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard, here.

Nice essay Justin. But where is Hagel's nomination? The same people control the media be they left or right. They don't want an end to our adventurism overseas. Obama has stuck his nose in more countries then Bush. I think he wants Hagel in theory, but in actuality he won't appoint him. It is just too much trouble. He would rather be out on the golf course or the beach in Hawai then doing the heavy lifting necessary for this kind of work. Obama is still a mass murderer who has taken the easy way out his whole presidency.

RickR30

Obama often has the right instincts but is overruled by the shadow government. Ultimately he has little say in how the government is run. His job is to sell whatever the real rulers are offering and do so with his charming mulatto smile.

PEACE EVER AFTER

Lets withhold final judgement on Obama. If he fails to nominate and strongly support Hagle than he is totally in the grips of the neo-cons and has no backbone. Then we can rightfully say that this country lives "for fear of the jews". For that matter the entire world may have succumbed to zionist dominance. This probably is because of the Samson Option.

On the other hand if he nominates and fights for the confirmation of Hagle, Obama will go down in history as one of our greatest leaders.

PEACE EVER AFTER

Since you consistently censor me I will no longer make comments on this site. Sometimes I wonder if your site is really anti war.

Sean

It's also "anti-troll"

Monster from the Id

Nice one, Sean. ^_^

Richard Steven Hack

"It’s about whether the Welfare-Warfare State is going to be allowed to bankrupt this country, both financially and morally, without encountering significant opposition from either the left or the right."

This still presumes that if Hagel becomes SecDef that he CAN change the direction of the ruling elite of this country.

I call that an absurd notion. It's not going to matter a whit whether he's appointed or not. We're STILL going to get a war with Syria and then a war with Iran. The country will STILL go bankrupt. Glenn Greenwald, among others who have commented in the past week, agrees that Hagel is pretty much irrelevant.

Whether there's some "opposition" is irrelevant because, absent a significant change to the electorate of this country, there is ZERO chance that the existing electorate is going to wrest back control of the Congress and the government from the ruling elite.

Nothing is going to change the direction of the US until one or both of two things happens: 1) the US suffers a MAJOR economic collapse, turning it into a (large) Third World country, or 2) the US suffers a major military defeat, i.e., not one in which the US merely withdraws from the field but one in which the US actually LOSES a major portion of its military assets.

The latter is not too likely any time soon, but it and the former are quite possible within the next 20-35 years.

Anti_Govt_Rebel

an example of a major military defeat would be the sinking of an aircraft carrier by iran in response to a US attack on their country. That WOULD be a major loss and is not outside the realm of possibility.

richard vajs

Richard Steven Hack – I agree 100% with your conclusions. To me, the public's approval of militarism is largely tied to "success" (whether real or just imaginary). The day, we get a whipping, and one that can't be ignored, a whole lot of the NASCAR-like flag waving will stop.
What I don't agree with is your sense of timing – it won't take 20-35 years. More like, in the next couple.
Re: your assertion, Justin, please get real – this Hagel nomination opposition is all about Israel. Nobody gives a crap about Hagel's views on anything except his lack of enthusiasm about attacking Syria and then Iran. Even supposed "liberals" who attack Hagel are demonstrating more Zionist credentials than "liberal" ones.

bob35983

re: "Nobody gives a crap about … views on anything except…"

Well, not quite. Again, resorting to the 'politics is local' argument, the newspaper in the 23rd CongDist of NY – Ft Drum land -, in an opposition editorial, Hagel is described as "dangerous" and the primary reason seems to be the supposition that Hagel does not and will not support construction of the (so-called) east coast missile defense system thus depriving New Yorkers of billions in Federal welfare.

RickR30

I agree with everything you say. However, it's still worth fighting for and defending Hagel. Silence, apathy, and defeatism got us exactly where we are.

Strider55

Or 3) the major economic collapse in 1) results in the Soviet-style breakup of the US. This, BTW, is my preferred scenario.

Unlike Justin, I tend to doubt that the liberals have any genuine "vestigial anti-interventionism." Their opposition to the Vietnam war was based on their allegiance to Marxism, as their waving of the Vietcong flag would attest. They supported every one of Clinton's idiotic overseas adventures (Somalia, Haiti, Iraq. Yugoslavia) because their hero labeled them as "humanitarian." For the same reason they also castigated Clinton for not intervening in the Rwandan civil war. I've said it here before, but it bears repeating: stick the H-word on any war and the left will flock to it like flies to crap.

That the current Israeli government is doing its best to undermine that goal is the real reason for the Israel lobby’s concerted attack on his views and character: which is just the sort of behavior we have come to expect from those who conflate the interests of the Likud government with those of the Jewish state itself.
———————————————————————————————————————————

First, Raimondo needs to define the parameters of what he considers to be the representatives of "The Jewish State".

In other words, if the interests of the various Likud coalitions over the years were not representatives of the "Jewish state"'s, then which coalitions' interests ARE representative of the state?

Simply put, what ARE the "interests of the Jewish State" and how do they differ from the interests of Likud coalitions?

That is a genuine question because as things stand, Raimondo is clearly missing vast amounts of information on this subject, essential historical and political background information.

For example, are the policies of the various Labor-Meretz coalitions of years past representative of the "interests of the Jewish state"?

Why does Raimondo continue to perpetuate the fiction that there is — as far as facts on the ground are concerned — a substantial difference between the various Israeli Knesset coalitions over the years?

Why?

RickR30

Why would it matter?

Avi G.

Why would it matter?

Because it gives readers the false impression that once Likud is out of the picture, once Labor, for example, takes the reigns for a decade or two, things will be different. They won't.

It was under successive so-called left-of-center governments that Israel expanded the colonies in the occupied West Bank to the behemoths they are today.

So to claim that Likud is somehow different than the rest is simply false. The rhetoric may be different, but the actions are the same.

If Raimondo, in his analysis, trusts more in the empty rhetoric and less in the reality on the ground, then so be it. But he can't expect to retain any credibility on the subject.

And I repeat, how does he define the "interests of the Jewish state"? What are those interests?

Its really not about Israel its about the almost inane and compliant as well as deficient American foreign policies of successive administrations.

Have to handed to the likes of Tea Partier and member of Congresss Michelle Bachmann pontificated on some months ago and reported by wikipedia…..

" I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States . . . [W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. And my husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly the verse from Genesis [Genesis 12:3], we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong and beautiful principle.

I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations. If I were an atheist of the other sect, who believe or pretend to believe that all is ordered by chance, I should believe that chance had ordered the Jews to preserve and propagate to all mankind the doctrine of a supreme, intelligent, wise, almighty sovereign of the universe, which I believe to be the great essential principle of all morality, and consequently of all civilization.

Is that not the same sentiment expressed by Bill Kristol, Maddow, Geller and others?

mulegino

You have hit the proverbial nail on its head. The utter servility of our political, academic and media institutions to the interests of a tiny and litigious minority is breathtaking. Americans are simply historical illiterates, whose event horizons are in inverse proportion to their inflated sense of American exceptionalism- in service to that aforementioned group. As Orwell's O'Brien stated: "He who controls the past, controls the future", or words to that effect. History is key; as long as we accept the narrative of the "Good War" and its attendant Manichean mythology, i.e, that America and her Grand Allies saved the world from the grip of the most evil man and regime in history, who committed its most unspeakable crime- we are bound to be enslaved to perpetual wars for perpetual peace. The utter, craven fealty to our Israeli albatross is merely a symptom- not the disease itself.

The more this unseemly affair over Hagel drags on, the more convinced I become that Obama will not nominate him. Any day now, I expect Hagel to do a Susan Rice and take his name out of consideration for nomination. No man should have to put up with what Obama has done to Hagel – letting him twist in the wind for weeks while both sides take political pot shots at him. Even if he wants Hagel, maybe Obama has been told by Reid that there is not enough votes in our dysfunctional Senate to confirm him.

David

{Obama often has the right instincts but is overruled by the shadow government}

Then why is he here? Obama is not a leader, he is an assassin and coward whose interest is to maximize his PROFITS for himself and his family. He does not give a damn to anyone else. If he is asked to kill 20 millions, he will do it and sleep well at night. On the other hand, if he were a leader, then he would have changed the direction of US foreign policy. He did not do it in the first four-year and WILL NOT DO IT THE NEXT one. The sheeples must come to term. Obama knows what he is doing, on the other hand, the phony "progressives' at this site and other website who create confussion by giving Obama more chances that he does not deserve and cover for him by engaging masses with stupid question "is Obama going to nominate Hagel?" a war criminal who voted for Iraq war. Obama is WORSE THAN George BUSH AND will remain the same throughout his "prsidency" where handed to him because of his blackness. Let's be honost with each other.

Phil Giraldi

I suspect that Obama has already dropped Hagel like a hot potato. And I hate to disagree with the thrust of this article, but even though "interventionism" might have many micro-constituencies when it comes to identifying who is out to get Hagel it is the usual pro-Israel crowd. Consider for a moment how all the serious interventions are themselves about Israel as they all target Muslim countries. Is it just a coincidence or is the Clean Break memo becoming the outline for US foreign policy?

omop

"or is the Clean Break memo becoming the outline for US foreign policy?" are you serious?

The Clean Break memo has been been US foreign policy for years beginning with the invasion of Iraq, the threats to Syria and other Middle Eastern states. Check out retired General Wes Clark speech in San Fransisco and his reference to the proposed wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and others. [ google and video too]

Phil Giraldi

I was being sarcastic omop…Israel firster Senator Mark Kirk, recently recovered from a stroke, apparently has enough energy to begin the fight on behalf of his favorite country: "I appreciate and respect Senator Hagel's record of service to our country, especially as a decorated combat veteran," Kirk said. "While he has not yet been nominated, I am concerned about his past record and statements, particularly with regard to Iran and the U.S.-Israel relationship. Should he be nominated to serve as Secretary of Defense, I will join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in a rigorous examination of these and other issues of concern." For all these folks who will be passing in judgment in the Senate it IS all about Israel and let's not forget that.

omop

I hear you. Thought a bit more after my first reply and came with this harebrained idea for our kind of folks… lets form a group and sign a letter to the President, Congress and the Senate "demanding that a true red, white and blue American be appointed Sec. of Defense and that individual be the one and only William KristoL. After all we do not want to be responsible for Mark Kirk's second or final stroke. Cheech.

abe

Being in Illinois I wonder how Kirk got in. He ran against a thief Gineulias and just barely won. Dems fixed it so he won…Filthy neocons. I think Kirk is a gun grabber TOO! A real piece of shit this neocon stooge.

mulegino

There is only one medical analogy to describe the symbiosis of American politicians and their Israeli client state: Stockholm Syndrome.

Heavens, now we have Raimondo and Giraldi involved in this thread. I don't want to Hagel about it but we've all had our Phil of politics and Obama.

What we need are some real Americans to stand up and throw their hats into the ring, people like John Wayne and Superman and Gary Cooper.

Where have all the heroes gone?

Loose Savage

Given the –ahem — pedigree of Hagel's opponents, and given that the Constitution has already been nullified by Bush/Obama, I am willing to support Hagel not just for Defense Secretary, but for interim dictator after a military coup.

wine

unfortunately the left along with the gay community desire is to wipe out anything associated with God. The whole of society should be subservient to them just like they are subservient to each other. The reason why homosexuality was a sin, was because it made peoples children bend over, drop to their knees before some man. Homosexuality is to dominate over the other. It is no wonder it is taught in schools, teach other peoples childrens to drop before you? What a grotesque group of people.

ML3

Listen tool: Go back and stand on the street corner with your "God hates fags" or your "Repent! The End is Nigh!" signs where we can all laugh at or ignore you at our leisure.
People like you and the traitors your kind vote for are why America is in the Zionist toilet.
Seriously, I hope you have gay children.

Monster from the Id

Hell, ML3, Wine is probably a closet case himself. :P

David

Hager like Obama and Kerry and Susan Rice and Hillary clinton IS A WAR CRIMINAL. Look at the choice of the assassin and a baby killer, Obama, for secratary of State:

{President Obama’s selection of John Kerry as the next secretary of state sends the wrong signal to America’s allies and adversaries alike. Kerry’s record in the United States Senate, where he currently chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, has included spurious attacks on the International Court of Justice, unqualified defense of Israeli occupation policies and human rights violations, and support for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, thereby raising serious questions about his commitment to international law and treaty obligations. Furthermore, his false claims about Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” and his repeated denials of well-documented human rights abuses by allied governments raise serious questions about his credibility.}

Yes, it is not all about Israel. Again I bring up Norman Finkelstein's position on the Jewish component of the Lobby. They're not Zionists. They're simply Americans who are interested power and privilege first and foremost. It just so happens that being holier-than-thou in support the Israeli government is one of the easiest ways within the Beltway today to realize that age old agenda of personal self aggrandizement.

"…It’s about whether the Welfare-Warfare State is going to be allowed to bankrupt this country, both financially and morally, without encountering significant opposition from either the left or the right…."

The so call welfare state is not bankrupting the country. Social Security and Medicare are paid for in advance by way of a highly regressive tax on labor. Social Security pays out less than it collects. This surplus has been used to reduce the government deficit for more than four decades now. Here economic historian Michael Hudson points out that no other government spending is funded and accounted for in the same manner, where funds are set aside in advance:

"…The government’s seashore insurance program, for instance, recently incurred a $1 trillion liability to rebuild the private beaches and homes that Hurricane Sandy washed out. Why should this insurance subsidy at below-commercial rates for the wealthy minority who live in this scenic high-risk property be treated as normal spending, but not Social Security? Why save in advance by a special wage tax to pay for these programs that benefit the general population, but not levy a similar “user fee” tax to pay for flood insurance for beachfront homes or war? And while we are at it, why not save another $13 trillion in advance to pay for the next bailout of Wall Street when debt deflation causes another crisis to drain the budget?…"

And not surprisingly Social Security is model of fiscal responsibility compared to the Pentagon and Wall Street. Medicare not so much, mostly because of our expensive and highly inefficient private health insurance system. Yet it is always the so called "entitlement" programs, which represent the hard earned savings of the working class in reality, and not the Pentagon and the financial sector receive, that are singled out as a deficit problem.

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].